BuzzFeed Inc. v. U.S. Department Of Justice

Background

BuzzFeed Inc. sued the U.S. Department of Justice under the Freedom of Information Act, a federal law that generally requires agencies to disclose agency records. BuzzFeed sought the underlying report prepared by the Department’s Office of the Inspector General about alleged misconduct by a former Department executive. The Office of the Inspector General released the 15-page report with redactions, including the subject’s identity, identifying and personal information, dates, the identities of third parties, the name of a nonsupervisory investigator, and allegations that were not substantiated.

BuzzFeed administratively challenged the redaction of the subject’s identity, office location, and retirement date. After that challenge was denied, BuzzFeed filed this action. The parties each moved for summary judgment, a procedure allowing the court to decide the case when there is no genuine dispute over facts that could affect the result. BuzzFeed challenged only the redaction of the subject’s identity.

Legal framework

The Department relied on Freedom of Information Act Exemptions 6 and 7(C). Exemption 6 protects personnel, medical, and similar files when disclosure would be a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. Exemption 7(C) protects law-enforcement records when disclosure could reasonably be expected to cause an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. The court held that the report was a law-enforcement record because the Inspector General investigated alleged employee misconduct to determine whether law, regulation, or Department policy had been violated. Because Exemption 7(C) provides broader privacy protection, the court analyzed the challenged redaction under that exemption.

Under Exemption 7(C), the court balanced the public interest in disclosure against the subject’s privacy interests. The requester had to identify a significant public interest and show that disclosure of the requested information was likely to advance that interest.

Court’s analysis

The court identified significant privacy interests in the subject’s identity, including potential reputational harm, embarrassment, and retaliation. Those interests were stronger because the subject had retired and was a private citizen.

The court considered five factors identified by the Second Circuit: the employee’s rank; the seriousness of the wrongdoing and strength of the evidence; whether other means existed to obtain the information; whether disclosure would shed light on government activity; and whether the information was related to job duties or was personal.

The first factor favored disclosure because the subject had been a member of the Department’s Senior Executive Service and the most senior person in the subject’s office. The third factor also favored disclosure because the government was the only way to obtain the identity.

The second factor did not favor disclosure. The Inspector General found, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the subject made sexually inappropriate comments to a subordinate on three occasions, kissed another subordinate on the lips and made inappropriate comments to that person, and asked employees to perform personal tasks. The court described the conduct as serious and the evidence as strong, but concluded that the conduct was not as serious as misconduct in cases where courts ordered disclosure of an employee’s identity. The court found no evidence that the conduct affected the administration of federal law, a government program, the entire office, or anyone other than the people directly involved.

The fourth factor weighed against disclosure. The report already disclosed the misconduct and the government’s investigation. The court concluded that adding the subject’s identity would not significantly increase public understanding of the Department’s performance of its duties. The fifth factor also favored nondisclosure because the identity was personal information, while the work-related information that shed light on government activity had already been released.

The court acknowledged a public interest in identifying government officials who commit misconduct, but concluded that the released report already allowed the public to understand what misconduct occurred within the Department and how it was investigated. BuzzFeed did not show that adding the subject’s identity would provide significant additional information about the government’s conduct. The subject’s privacy interests therefore significantly outweighed the public interest in disclosure.

Disposition

The court held that the Department properly redacted the subject’s identity under Exemption 7(C). It denied BuzzFeed’s motion for summary judgment and granted the Department’s motion for summary judgment. The Clerk was directed to enter judgment dismissing the case, close all pending motions, and close the case. Judge John G. Koeltl signed the memorandum opinion and order.